Contract Briefing Notice. Clinical Ambulatory Syringe Drivers

Transcription

1 Contract Briefing Notice Clinical Ambulatory Syringe Drivers Date:- October 2009

2 Those involved with re:source Collaborative Procurement Hub: Bassetlaw PCT Derbyshire County PCT Derby City PCT Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Midlands SHA Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust Leicester City PCT Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust Lincolnshire PCT Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Northampton Teaching PCT Nottingham City PCT Nottinghamshire County Teaching PCT Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust Map to show the counties involved with re:source Derbyshire 2. Lincolnshire 3. Nottinghamshire 5 4. Leicestershire County and Rutland 5. Northamptonshire re:source House Phoenix Centre Millennium Way East Nottingham NG8 6AR

3 Ambulatory Infusion Device Procurement Project Introduction Incidents and clinical risks associated with the use of its existing ambulatory device (the Smiths MS16a) were reviewed at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. There were a significant number of incidents, so a tasked team was set up to establish whether any other ambulatory infusion devices offered in the UK healthcare market, provided clinical improvements over and above the current product in use and, if so, if the enhancements enabled a cost effective solution. The device would be used in primary and secondary care. Other Trusts within the East Midlands region may wish to take advantage of this tender at any stage during the contract. The project was led by Dr Daniel Clark, Head of Clinical Engineering, Medical Physics, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Process Project code OJEU reference EMCPH was advertised on 30/07/08 with an initial 11 expressions of interest from suppliers. 1 st Evaluation Suppliers were advised a short listing for evaluation would take place via a table top evaluation day held at Sherwood Hall, City Campus on Monday 27 th October 2008 and in order to qualify must detail products they may potentially offer within this tender process. In addition Suppliers were notified that the following conditions applied. Suppliers who are successful in reaching the evaluation stage will be prepared to: Agree to provide sufficient products for Nottingham University Hospitals to evaluate the product in a clinical setting at a number of locations. Agree to provide training for both clinical and technical staff involved in the evaluation. Agree to assist in the set up and calibration of the products for evaluation. Agree to a 2 week period, decided upon by the Trust, for the product to be evaluated. Ensure the Trust has full support during this period. Be entitled to a copy of the evaluation report for the product on completion.

4 The companies that then submitted to attend (including their devices) were: Applied Medical Technology Baxter Healthcare Cardinal Health Eden Medical Eden Medical McKinley McKinley Smiths Medical Smiths Medical Cane Crono Syringe Pump Infusor range of elastomeric infusion devices Alaris AD Ambulatory Syringe Driver The Micrel range of Syringe Drivers The Rhythmic Plus Ambulatory Volumetric Pump T34 Syringe Driver Bodyguard 323 Ambulatory Volumetric Pump MS16A Ambulatory Syringe Driver CADD Legacy 1 Ambulatory Volumetric Pump Users including the Ambulatory Infusion Device task team and ward staff were invited to attend and given the brief to visit each of the companies stands, talk to the representative while being given a demonstration of the device and make a decision as to whether they would be prepared to trial the device. They were given a list of questions to guide them and were encouraged to handle the device where possible. When they had visited all of the stands they were asked to list their choice of devices to trial, 1 3. A total of 16 staff attended from the following: Ward Sisters Deputy Ward Sisters Macmillan Nurses Pathway Facilitator for last days of life Staff Nurses Student nurses Medical Consultant Medical Device Training Officers

5 A clinical engineer from the Trust also attended to conduct an evaluation, from an engineering point of view, on the devices: Device Opinion Comments Alaris AD Favourable It has all the safety features desired by the MHRA and meets In terms of usability, it appears to be easy to load. The screen is nicely sized with clear information and prompts. The lockbox is an integral part of the device. Uses rechargeable batteries device requires 15 minutes / 24 hours in its docking station to recharge The on screen display prompts the user to prime the line Programming is only by device detected volume over changeable time period evaluation needed to know if this would be an issue. CADD Favourable There are two cadd lagacy devices which would appear to be suitable Both devices have an integral lockable cover over the drug cassette. Both have all the safety features desired by the MHRA and meet Both appear to be easy to use filling of the cassette may be an issue but presumable would solve the issue of accidental plunging as mentioned by clinical users in our team meetings. These devices have a dedicated prime button but the user is not prompted to use it. T34 Acceptable Meets all the safety features desired by the MHRA and Unsure about robustness of this device quality of syringe securing parts etc Does not prompt user to prime and difficult to initiate Previous evaluation showed poor battery performance and life indication. Cane Crono Unacceptable Does not fully meet MHRA or Not clear indication of infusion status, small icon flashing on screen and if collar in place syringe displacement would not be visible. Crono T Programmed in volume over time Crono PCA programmed in ml/h Micrel Unacceptable Not fully compliant with MHRA and in terms of alarms and safety features (better than MS16) Not of robust construction Screen only indicates set flow rate MS16A Unacceptable Does not fully meet MHRA or programmed in mm A total of 15 responses from clinical staff including the user s 1 st, 2 nd & 3 rd choice of devices to trial, were received. Five responses gave a first and second choice only as they felt strongly that they were the only devices to trial. The choices and totals are tabled below. Device First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Total Alaris AD CADD Cane Crono Micrel MS16A T

6 On evaluation it was immediately apparent that the Baxter Healthcare Infusor range of Elastomeric Infusion Devices were not suitable for trial or evaluation. They are not suitable for hospital use, are not run on battery or ac power, it is not possible to assess the amount that has been infused; it does not have any alarms or memory. The Cane Crono representative stated that the device was more suited for home use and may not be suitable for the hospital setting this would have become apparent at technical evaluation. The representative left at 12:30pm along with the Baxter Health representative and therefore they were not present for the afternoon evaluations. The following were then taken out of the process for the following reasons and the suppliers briefed accordingly on the 15/12/08: Smiths Medical Cadd Devices: The cassette nature of the device could result in high drug wastage, hence decided not appropriate for NUH. Crono Products more suited to particular therapies and community use, not suitable for NUH use. Also does not meet all the desired features we are looking for at NUH such as the MHRA recommended features for such devices *. Eden, Micrel Micropumps (Various) Devices very similar in appearance to MS16A (device currently used by NUH), this apparent similarity could lead to problems during use. Also does not meet all the desired features we are looking for at NUH which include the MHRA recommended features for such devices.* Baxter Unsuitable for NUH intended use; would lead to drug wastage. We were also looking for a powered device with safety features etc. Reference Table 4b, (P54) of Infusion Systems Device Bulletin, MDA DB2003(02) March nd Evaluation McKinley with T34 and Cardinal Health with Alaris AD were scheduled to have two weeks of training and clinical use, to run consecutively over February 2009 across 5 wards. The current product Smiths Medical MS16A had been in use for a number of years and staff familiar with the features. The Ambulatory Infusion Device task team designed a scoring evaluation protocol to be used during this period. It was concluded both McKinley and Cardinal would be invited to tender alongside the incumbent Smiths. Procurement The OJEU EMCPH was restricted to offers from McKinley, Cardinal Health and Smiths and run through the electronic BRAVO system. The process closed after the normal running period with offers received from McKinley and Smiths. Cardinal Health made contact after the closure to advise error as offer made on another NHS tender running independent of Resource, but to allow an offer would have compromised the process.

7 Conclusion The Buyers Guide published by Purchasing and Supply Agency Centre for Evidence based Purchasing on Ambulatory Syringe Drivers in Dec 2008 was used to provide support for additional scoring. Based on the weighting mechanism the scoring was summarised as: 40% Clinical McKinley 29.29% Smiths 18.13% 10% Training & Support McKinley 7.32% Smiths 7.59% 30% Pricing McKinley 21.87% Smiths 30.00% 15% Running costs McKinley 14.28% Smiths 14.85% 5% Cleaning McKinley 3.00% Smiths 4.00% *Overall score McKinley 75.82% Smiths 74.63% The Ambulatory Infusion Device Task Team recognised that, in purely commercial terms, Smiths were lower (45% cf 36%). However, the McKinley significantly out scored the Smiths product on the clinical evaluation (29% cf 18%). Moreover, the McKinley met the desired safety features of MHRA or whereas the Smiths did not. This is also borne out in the Buyers Guide Market Review: very good 5 stars McKinley compared to good 4 stars Smiths. Although the overall scores were very close (McKinley being slightly ahead overall), the Tasked Team concluded that the essential safety requirements and the higher clinical evaluation made the McKinley produce a clearly better choice. It was therefore agreed to award the contract to McKinley. Commercial Contract Period The prices will be fixed for a period of 5 years from 1 st August st July 2014, with an option to extend for a further 2 years by mutual agreement. Member Trusts of NHS Resource Procurement Hub are eligible to participate and utilise this contract. Pricing Structure To ensure transparency across all accounts the following discount structure has been established. Prices apply to individual order volumes only and cannot be applied retrospectively on cumulative order quantities. However, Trusts may opt to maximise the discount structure financial benefits by co ordinating their placements and applying the relevant quantity discount price to the total number of pumps to be ordered across each purchase order. These purchase orders must be placed at the same time to apply this benefit.

8 Description Code List Price Quantity T34 Ambulatory Syringe Pump SM Discount Price Clear Pump Lock Box Yellow Pump Lock Box (both accept most 30ml syringes) S SE Small Carry Pouch (pump only) Std Carry Pouch (pump and lock box) S S Disposable Carry Pouch (pump and lock box) cm line with check valve & female LLock S case of As above with yellow striped tubing SE case of Terms Payment terms are 30 days from date of invoice. All quoted prices are exclusive of VAT at the prevailing rate. VAT exemption certificates must accompany any order where the customer is seeking exemption from VAT. Delivery Delivery is usually within 7 10 days from receipt of order. Carriage is charged at 6.95 for single case orders and a 9.95 fixed charge for larger quantities irrespective of size/weight. Contact CME McKinley UK Limited Kincraig Business Park Kincraig Road Blackpool FY2 0PJ Tel:

9 Clinical Training

10 Warranty

11 Technical Support